Adnan Syed’s case has remained unresolved for the past two years due to a complicated appeals process over victims’ rights. The state vacated his conviction for murdering Hye Min Lee in 2022, only for an appeals court to reverse the decision and Restoring his conviction A few months later. Now the Maryland Supreme Court, after hearing arguments from all sides, has upheld Syed’s reinstatement.
At issue was whether Lee’s brother, Yang Lee, his family’s court representative in the proceedings, was given enough notice before a 2022 hearing on Syed’s motion to plead guilty — a hearing that lasted several minutes and saw Lee sign off. Court via Zoom. Petitions filed directly by victims or their families are rare, but this one has been successful Two courts in a row Lee did not have enough time to prepare for the hearing or appear in person.
In a 4-3 decision, the state Supreme Court found that the summary judgment to vacate was “An injustice has been done“Against Lee.
Because the issue concerns the right of the victim’s family to be present rather than the real question of Syed’s guilt or innocence — which the court ultimately appears to have decided in his favor — his conviction. Mainly procedural. That means it likely won’t affect the final outcome of Syed’s case. Prosecutors Charges officially waived He was briefly convicted in 2022 when he was convicted, citing new DNA testing on Hye Min’s clothing that yielded results for four different people – none of whom matched Syed.
The back-and-forth debate over Yang Lee’s rights is important, however: It serves as a useful reminder to courts to prioritize victims’ rights — even in a case where it appears to have resulted in a wrongful conviction.
To the general audience, Syed’s release from prison may seem like a long time coming. The subject of the revolutionary first season Serial His conviction for the 1999 murder of his ex-girlfriend was eventually cleared in September 2022. The push to vacate, led by the Baltimore prosecutor’s office, comes after a special case review uncovered new evidence, including two new suspects, that cast reasonable doubt on his trial and conviction. Counsel dropped all charges against Syed just days later.
However, the circumstances that led to Syed’s release were fairly unusual, after years of tedious appeals and, finally, a new case review that stemmed from a sweeping effort to bring about desperately needed reforms to Baltimore’s criminal justice system and sentencing system. The situation was so unusual that it seems to have led to a rather unusual omission: the victim’s family was given almost no time to prepare for the hearing.
Hae Min’s brother, Yang Lee, who was acting as the victim’s lawyer, was given only one day’s notice to prepare for the hearing, which included travel arrangements to and from Baltimore. According to Appeal decisionThe lower court originally assumed Lee would appear via a Zoom link — but Lee apparently agreed to appear at the hearing via Zoom only as a last resort, since he didn’t have time to prepare to appear in person.
“I’ve never heard of a victim’s family being contacted the day before,” said the former Brooklyn prosecutor. Julie Rendelman told Vox. “We usually let them know in advance if there is a problem. They followed procedurally before the hearing took place.”
Lee “asked for more time, because he wanted a chance to talk to his attorney and get a better understanding of what the evidence is” supporting Syed’s innocence, he said. “But he didn’t make it in time, and so instead, at the last minute, he came to a Zoom call. So the question was whether that was sufficient notice.”
The court found that it was not. On Tuesday, March 28, the appeals panel, in a 2-1 decision, temporarily reinstated Syed’s conviction and reversed an earlier decision to resign. The court adjourned the new decision for 60 days, meaning it won’t come into effect for another two months, to give the prosecution and defense in Syed’s case time to adjust to the reinstated verdict.
Effectively, the suspended sentence prevents Syed from returning to prison. Instead, it required a redo of the original September hearing on the motion to vacate — an appeals court deemed necessary so the victim’s family could attend the hearing in person.
Rendelman told Vox that it’s rare for a victim’s family to bring this type of appeal, and it’s rare for such a ruling to be made. “At the same time,” he emphasized, “it’s also rare [not to] Give notice to the victim’s family.”
“If a prosecutor doesn’t reach out to the family letting them know in advance that a hearing is coming down the pike where there’s a possibility that the person who killed their loved one is going to get out of jail, that’s absurd. “
He noted that while the court motion is essentially a technical one, it raises questions about the role of technology in a modern criminal justice system. “It’s interesting,” Rendelman said, “because we’re really in a different time than three years ago, where Zoom has become an acceptable form of participation in court proceedings.” The appeals court, however, noted that not only was Lee’s family given short notice, but all other relevant parties were able to appear in person, which created an unfair situation.
“The exception here is that he didn’t want to be on Zoom and was given no time to appear,” he said of Lee.
Still, the fact that the victim’s family brought the appeal directly to the state appears to be a sticking point for some in the criminal justice community. “This is a case where victims’ rights advocates are looking to expand the rights they already have in our criminal justice system,” said University of Maryland professor Doug Colbert, who was one of Syed’s original lawyers. WMAR said The appeal is due to be heard in February. “They are saying that a crime victim should have essentially the same rights and role as a prosecuting attorney.” He described any verdict for Lee’s family as “extraordinary.”
But Rendelman noted that Lee’s family isn’t actually asking for more power — just to exercise their right to be present. “They are not seeking any control over decisions; They just want to be present for it, which they have a right to do. The law does not require that they have a say in what happens. The law just needs to be able to attend to them.
“Those who have problems with governance question whether victims should have such a large say in what happens in a criminal procedure. But those on the other side are pretty victorious because their position is that the rights of victims should be respected, especially in cases like this, where they’ve been living with the loss of family members for 20 years and want some clarity on how hearings are conducted.”
Since the prosecution has already decided to drop all charges against Syed, a new hearing to convict him will do little to change the final outcome. In fact, it’s unlikely that these hearings, as rare as they are, would even make the news if the families involved weren’t so high-profile.
“Without it, the paper would not have been produced [related to] Adnan Syed,” Rendelman said. “Regardless of the case, every victim’s family deserves the same respect.”
The decision to accept Yang Lee’s request to attend the hearing was not unanimous; The Court of Appeal was Part 2-1 On the issue, and the Maryland Supreme Court was split 4-3, dissenting Justice Michelle D. with Hoten writing“This case exists as a procedural zombie” and the “doctrine of causality” – one Systematic determination As to the actual relevance of the appeal – “such judicial necromancy was designed to prevent.” Effectively, Hoten argued that since Syed’s conviction had already been decided, the back-and-forth in the high court over Lee’s right to appear was redundant.
What happens next? For now, Syed will likely stay out of prison until the 2022 hearing that freed him, this time with Yang Li in the courtroom again. After all, although Syed’s conviction is reinstated, nothing indicates that the ability to attend and participate in a new hearing on the motion to vacate would change the outcome already established. If this happens, it will be an extraordinary and unprecedented moment.
Update, August 30, 12:45 pm ET: This article was originally published on March 29, 2023. It has been updated to reflect the most recent court decision in the Syed case.
